Texas Attorney General Opinion: JC-146 Page: 3 of 6
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Honorable Bob Hunter - Page 3
corporation or subdivision of the state "to lend its credit or to grant public money or thing of value
in aid of, or to any individual, association or corporation whatsoever." Id. 52. The purpose of
article III, sections 51 and 52 is the same - to prevent the gratuitous application of public funds to
private individuals. See Byrd v. City ofDallas, 6 S.W.2d 738, 740 (Tex. 1928); Graves v. Morales,
923 S.W.2d 754, 757 (Tex. App.-Austin 1996, writ denied). But the constitution does not bar a
governmental expenditure that benefits a private interest if it is made for the direct accomplishment
of a legitimate public purpose. See Byrd, 6 S.W.2d at 740. "A transfer of funds for a public purpose,
with a clear public benefit received in return, does not amount to a lending of credit or a grant of
public funds in violation of article III, sections 51 and 52." Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Meno,
917 S.W.2d 717, 740 (Tex. 1995). For this reason, attorneys general have long opined that sections
51 and 52 do not preclude the state or a political subdivision from making an expenditure of public
money that benefits a private person or entity if the appropriate governing body (i) determines that
the expenditure serves a public purpose and (ii) places sufficient controls on the transaction to ensure
that the public purpose is carried out. See, e.g., Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. DM-256 (1993) at 2-3;
JM-1146 (1990) at 4-5; JM-551 (1986) at 3-4; H-966 (1977) at 2.
A related limitation, article III, section 44, prohibits the legislature from making grants of
money out of the State Treasury, by appropriation or otherwise, "to any individual, on a claim, real
or pretended, when the same shall not have been provided for by pre-existing law." TEX. CONST.
art. III, 44. This office has construed this provision to preclude the legislature from appropriating
funds unless the appropriation is authorized by pre-existing general law. See, e.g., Tex. Att'y Gen.
Op. Nos. H-1213 (1978) at 1; M-1068 (1972) at 5 ("It is settled as the law of this state that under the
provisions of Section 44 of Article III of the Constitution of Texas, the legislature is prohibited from
appropriating state money unless at the very time the appropriation is made, there is already in force
some pre-existing valid law authorizing the appropriation.") (emphasis in original) (citing Fort
Worth Cavalry Club v. Sheppard, 83 S.W.2d 660, 668 (Tex. 1935)); see also Bullock v. Calvert, 480
S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1972) (holding that even if legislature had appropriated funds to officer
for a particular purpose, officer must also have statutory authority to enter into contract for that
purpose) (citing Fort Worth Cavalry Club v. Sheppard, 83 S.W.2d 660).
In addition, some constitutional provisions dictate the form of legislative appropriations. For
example, article III, section 35 limits the legislature to including in an appropriations act "various
subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated." TEX. CONST. art. III,
35. Article III, section 35 has been construed by the courts to preclude the legislature from
enacting substantive law in an appropriations act. See Strake v. Court ofAppeals, 704 S.W.2d 746,
748 (Tex. 1986) ("This Unity-in-Subject Clause has been construed to mean that appropriations is
a single subject and that any rider to an appropriations bill must relate to the appropriation of funds.
Any rider dealing with a different subject is general legislation and prohibited by the
Unity-in-Subject Clause. A rider which attempts to alter existing substantive law is a general law
which may not be included in an appropriations act.") (citing Jessen Assocs. v. Bullock, 531 S.W.2d
593, 600-01 (Tex. 1975); Moore v. Sheppard, 192 S.W.2d 559, 561-62 (Tex. 1946)). In addition,
article VIII, section 6 provides that no money shall be drawn from the State Treasury "but in(JC-o0146)
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: JC-146, text, November 16, 1999; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth274455/m1/3/: accessed April 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.